Talk:Trimethylsilyldiazomethane
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Nonexplosive
editThe sources claiming TMSCH2N2 are non-explosive link back to a single reference (Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1981, 29, 3249) which only states that the compound is non-explosive and provides no evidence for this claim. It appears the compound is nowhere near as sensitive/unstable as diazomethane but that's a different (and arguably more relevant) concept.
Article title – trimethylsilyldiazomethane or diazo(trimethylsilyl)methane
editSee Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Avoiding an edit war and User talk:Benjah-bmm27#Diazo(trimethylsilyl)methane. --Ben (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Concerned that ref 6 does not state what is claimed in the article text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.173.246 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Toxicity
editIs mechanism of toxicity similar to that of phosgene? I.E it cross links proteins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.102.170 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Mechanism Discussion
editThe article text maintains that "Trimethylsilyldiazomethane convert [sic] carboxylic acids to their methyl esters. It had been proposed that TMS reagent converts to diazomethane itself by a pathway involving the solvent and acidic substrate, giving the active methylating agent (citation). More recent studies instead support that the TMS reagent itself is the active methylating agent (citation). "
I am concerned, since both of the (citation) in the article refer to the same Lloyd-Jones publication wherein the proposed mechanism involves liberation of diazomethane (sentence 1). I am confused where the second sentence is coming from, is a reference needed? Or is there a misinterpretation of the literature involved? Anotherdayanotherdimer (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- That was my content. I cannot find whatever ref I was apparently referring to for a mechanism to supercede that one's mechanism, so I will have to assume it was instead a misinterpretation (perhaps mis-identification of which was old vs new). Yikes, sorry! This one's point is indeed the generation of diazomethane as superceding an older hypothesis. I have updated the article. Thanks for catching that glaring error, whater it's origin. DMacks (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)